PARLIAMENTARY OATH (MR. BRADLAUGH). (Hansard, 23 June 1880)

§ MR. BRADLAUGH,
one of the Members for Northampton, having come to the Table, claiming to take the Oath required by Law, the Clerk explained to 630 him, that after the recent Resolution of the House, he was not authorised to tender him the Oath; and Mr. Brad-laugh having replied that he had no formal knowledge of the said Resolution, the Clerk reported the matter to the Speaker.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I have to inform the hon. Member that the House at its last Sitting came to the following Resolution:— That, having regard to the Reports and proceedings of two Select Committees appointed by this House, Mr. Bradlaugh be not permitted to take the Oath or make the Affirmation mentioned in the Statute 29 Vic. c. 19, and the 31 and 32 Vic. c. 72. In pursuance of that Resolution I must call upon the hon. Member to withdraw.

§ MR. BRADLAUGH
Before withdrawing, Sir, I would ask through you —[Cries of "Order !""Withdraw !"] —before withdrawing, Sir, I would ask through you—[Renewed interruption.'] — before withdrawing, Sir, I would ask through you if this House, faithful to its old traditions, will hear me before putting that Resolution in force? There is no precedent for it.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I understood the hon. Member to desire to be heard upon the matter now under the consideration of the House. That is a question for the judgment of the House, and I must call upon the hon. Member to withdraw in order that the House may consider it.

§ MR. BRADLAUGH
I withdraw, Sir, while it is considered.

§ Mr. BRADLAUGH
withdrew.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
I beg to move that Mr. Bradlaugh be now heard.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Does any hon. Member second the Motion?

MR. ASHTON DILKE
I will second the Motion.

§ MR. SPENCER WALPOLE
There is an ambiguity in the Motion which has just been made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) which I think ought to be cleared up before we come to any decision upon the point. The ambiguity is this. In the 631 Motion made by the hon. Member for Northampton he asks generally that Mr. Bradlaugh should be now heard. I think, Sir, that that Motion ought not to be put in that form. It ought to be put in the form that was adopted in the case of Mr. Daniel O'Connell, "That Mr. Bradlaugh be now heard at the Bar of the House."

§ Mr. SPEAKER
The Question is that Mr. Bradlaugh be now heard; and it is open to the House to declare its pleasure that he should be heard at the Bar.

§ Mr. LABOUCHERE
I am quite willing to alter the Motion I have made, and to substitute for it a Motion, "That Mr. Bradlaugh be now heard at the Bar of the House."

§ Mr. SPEAKER
Does the hon. Member for Northampton ask the leave of the House to withhraw his Motion in order to substitue the words he has mentioned?

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
Yes.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
I beg to move, "That Mr. Bradlaugh be now heard at the Bar of the House."

§ SIR R. ASSHETON CROSS
I think, that before we proceed further, the Government ought to give us some advice.

§ Mr. BRADLAUGH
was then called in and came to the Bar of the House.

§ MR. BRADLAUGH
Mr. Speaker: Sir, I have to ask the indulgence of every Member of this House, while, in a position unexampled in the history of this House, I try to give one or two reasons why the Resolution which you have read to me should not be enforced. If it were not unbecoming I should appeal to the traditions of the House against the House itself, and I should point out that in none of its Records, so far as my poor reading goes, is there any case in which this House has judged one of its Members in his absence, and taken away from that Member the Constitutional right which he undoubtedly 632 has. There have been Members against whom absolute legal disqualification has been urged. No such legal disqualification is ventured to be urged by any Member of this House against myself. But even those Members have been heard in their places; those Members have been listened to before the decision was taken against them; and I ask that the House to myself shall not be less just than it has always been to every one of its Members. Do you tell me I am unfit to sit among you? The more reason, then, that this House should show that generosity which Judges show to a criminal, and allow every word he has to say to be heard. But I stand here, Sir, as no criminal. I stand here as the chosen of a constituency of this country, with my duty to that constituency to do. I stand here, Sir—if it will not be considered impertinent to put it so—with the most profound respect for this House, of which I had hoped and mean to form a part, and on whose traditions I should not wish to cast one shadow of reproach. I stand here returned duly, no Petition against my Return, no impeachment of that Return. I stand here returned duly, ready to fulfil every form that this House requires, ready to fulfil every form that the law permits this House to require, ready to do every duty that the law makes it incumbent on me to do. I will not, Sir, in this presence, argue whether this House has or has not the right to set its decision against the law; because I should imagine that even the rashest of those who speak against me would hardly be prepared to put it into the mouth of one whom they consider too advanced in politics an argument so dangerous as that might become. I speak, Sir, within the limits of the law, asking for no favour from this House for myself or for my constituency, but asking here for the merest justice, which has always been accorded to a Member of this House. I have to ask indulgence lest the memory of some hard words which have been spoken in my absence should seem to give to what I say a tone of defiance, which it is far from my wish should be there at all; and I am the more eased, because, although there were words spoken which I have always been taught that English gentlemen never said in the absence of an antagonist without notice to him in advance, yet there were also generous and brave 633 words said for one who is at present, I am afraid, a source of trouble and discomfort and hindrance to Business; and I measure those generous words against the others, and I will only make one appeal through you, Sir, and that is, that if the reports be correct, that the introduction of other names came with mine in the heat of passion and the warmth of debate, that then the Gentleman who used those words, if such there were, will remember that he was wanting in chivalry, because, while a man can answer for himself—and I am able to answer for myself—nothing can justify the introduction of any other name besides my own to make a prejudice against me. I fear lest the strength of this House — exercised, as I understand it to be, with infrequency of judicial exercise—that the strength of this House makes it forget our relative positions. At present, I am pleading at this Bar for justice. By right it is there, upon the benches of this House, that I should make my appeal. It is that right which I claim now in the name of those who sent me here. There was no legal disqualification before the Election, or it might have been made a ground of Petition. No legal disqualification since my Election is even pretended. It is said-—"You might have taken the Oath, as other Members did." I could not help, when I read that, Sir, trying to put myself in the place of each Member who said it. I imagined a Member of some form of faith who found in the Oath words which seemed to him to clash with his faith, but still words which he thought he might utter, but which he would prefer that he should not utter if there were any other form which the law provided him; and I asked myself whether each of those Members would not then have taken the form most consistent with his honour and his conscience? If I have not misread, some hon. Members seem to think I have neither honour nor conscience. Is there not some proof to the contrary in the fact that I did not go through the form, believing that there was some other right open to me? Is that not some proof that I had some honour and conscience? And I ask those Gentlemen who are now about to measure themselves against the right of the constituencies of England, what justification have they for that 634 measurement? Some say I have thrust my opinions upon this House. I appeal here, Sir, to the evidence of Sir Thomas Erskine May, and I can find no evidence of any opinion of mine having been thrust upon this House. I have read—it may be that the reports misrepresent—that the cry of "Atheist" has been raised on that (the Opposition) side of the House. No word of all mine before the Committee, no word of all mine in any document, puts these theological or anti-theological opinions in evidence before the House. I am no more ashamed of my own opinions— which I did not choose—I am no more ashamed of my opinions, into which I have grown, than any Member of this House is ashamed of his; and, much as I value the right to a seat in this House, much as I believe the justice of this House will accord it me before the struggle ceases, I would rather relinquish it for ever than it should be thought that, upon any shadow of hypocrisy, I had tried to gain a feigned entrance here by pretending to be what I am not. In the Report of the Committee, as it stands upon the evidence before the House, what is the objection either to my Affirmation or to my taking the Oath? It is said, "You have no legal right to affirm." I will suppose that it be so. It is the first time the House of Commons has made itself a Court of Law from which there may be no appeal, and deprived a citizen of his Constitutional right of appeal to a Court of Law to make out what the statute means in dealing with him. There is no case in which the House has overridden everything, and put one of its Members where he has no chance of battling for his right to take the Oath. It is possible that some of the lawyers—hon. and learned Gentlemen who have disagreed among themselves even upon that (the Opposition) side of the House —it is possible that they may be right, and that I may be wrong in the construction I have put upon the Oath. But no such objection can come. There is no precedent—there is, I submit respectfully, no right—on the part of this House to stand between me and that Oath which the law provides for me to take, which the statute, under a penalty compels that I shall take, and which another statute, under penalty even on Members of this House themselves if they put me out 635 from my just Return, gives me a right of appeal. But what kind of conflict is provoked here if this Resolution be enforced? Not a grave conflict like that which takes place in a Court of Law, where the Judges exclude passion, and where they only deal with facts and evidence. I do not mean that these hon. Gentlemen do not deal with facts; but, if I am any judge, there have been many things which I can hardly reckon in the category of facts put against myself. I do not mean that they are not right, for hon. Members may know more of myself than I do myself; but, judging myself as I know myself, some of the hon. Members who have attacked me so glibly during the last few days must have been extremely misinformed, or must have exceedingly misapprehended matters. It has been said that I have paraded and flaunted some obnoxious opinions. I appeal to your justice, Sir, and to that of the Members of this House to say whether my manner has not been as respectful as that of man could be?—whether, in each case, I have not withdrawn when you told me? If I now insist on my right to come to that Table, it is because I feel that I should be a recreant and a coward to the constituency which has entrusted me to represent them; and I mean to be as Members have been in the best history of this Assembly. I ask the House, in dealing with my right, to remember how they are acting. It is perfectly true that by a majority they may decide now. What are you going to do then? Are you going to declare the seat vacant? First, I submit that you have not the right. The moment I am there, upon the floor of the House, I admit the right of the House, of its own will and pleasure, to expel me; but, until the time when I am there, I am as yet not under your jurisdiction. As yet I am under the protection of the law. A Return sends me to this House, and I ask you, Sir, as the guardian of the liberties of this House, to give effect to that Return. The law says you should, and that this House should; and, naturally so, because, if it were not so, a majority of Members might, at any time, exclude anyone they pleased. Now, what has been alleged against me? Polities? Are views on politics to be urged as a reason why a Member should not sit here? Pamphlets have been read — I will not say with 636 accuracy, because I will not libel any of the hon. Members who read them—but, surely, if they are grounds of disqualification, they are grounds of indictment, to be proved against me in a proper fashion. There is no case in all the Records of this House in which you have ransacked what a man has written and said during his past life, and then challenged him with it here. My theology? It would be impertinent in me, after the utterances from men so widely disagreeing with me as have been made on the side of religious liberty during the past two nights—it would be impertinent in me to add one word save this. It is said that you may deal with me because I am isolated. I could not help hearing the ring of that word in the Lobby as I sat outside last night. But is that a reason, that, because I stand alone, that the House are to do against me what they would not do if I had 100,000 men at my back? [Cries of "Oh, oh!"] That is a bad argument—an argument which provokes a reply inconsistent with the dignity of this House, and which I should be sorry to give. I have not yet used—I hope no passion may tempt me into using—any words that would seem to savour of even a desire to enter into a conflict with this House. I have always taught and believed in the supremacy of Parliament, and it is not because for a moment the judgment of one Chamber of Parliament should be hostile to me, that I am going to deny the ideas I have always held; but I submit that one Chamber of Parliament, even its grandest Chamber, as I have always held and believe this to be, has no right to override the law. The law gives me the right to sign that Boll, to take and subscribe that Oath, and to take my seat there upon those benches. I admit that the moment I am in the House, without any reason but your own good will, you can send me away. That is your right; you have full control over your Members. But you cannot send me away until I have been heard in my place— not a suppliant, as I am now, but with the rightful audience that each Member has always had. There is one phase of my appeal which I am loth indeed to make. I presume you will declare the seat vacant. What do you send me back to Northampton to say to them? I have said before, and I trust I may say so again, that this Assembly is one in 637 which any man might be proud to sit— prouder, I, that have not some of your traditions and am not of some of your families, but that I am of the people— the people who sent me here to speak for them. Do you mean that I am to go back to Northampton as a Court, to appeal to against you? Do you mean that I am to tell my constituency to array themselves against this House? I hope not; but if it is to be, it must be. If this House arrays itself against an isolated man—it it be its huge powers against one citizen that you are thinking to use—if it must be that, then the battle must be, too. But it is not with the constituency of Northampton alone—hon. Members need be under no mistake-that you will come into conflict. If this appeal has to go forward—if the House of Commons is to override the statute law to get rid even of the vilest of its Members—had you alleged even more against me than against one man whose name was spoken of in this House last night, or had you endeavoured to allege as much against me, still I hold that this House cannot supersede the rights of the people of this country. But not as much is alleged against me as was alleged against that man, in whose case the House itself said that its conduct had been subversive of the rights of the people. I beg you, for your own sakes, do not put yourselves in that position. I have no desire to wrestle with you for justice. I have always believed that, although in moments of Party passion votes may be given which are sometimes repented of — I have always believed that in an Assembly of English Gentlemen having to deal with one, however obnoxious justice is meted out — and I admit I have used hard words in my short life that give men the right to say hard things of me—but is it not better that I should have the right, if within the law, to say them to your face? and, if without the law, then let the law deal with me fairly and properly, and not unfairly, as I submit you are doing now. You have the power to send me back; but, in appealing to Northampton, I must appeal to a tribunal higher than yours—not to the Courts of Law, for I hope the days of conflict between the Assembly which makes the law and the Tribunals which administer it are passed. It must be a bad day for England and for Great 638 Britain if we are to be brought back again to a time when the Judges and those who make the law for the Judges are to try in rash strife what they mean. But there is a Court to which I shall appeal—the Court of public opinion. You say it is against me. Possibly; but then, if it be so, is it against me rightly or wrongly? I am ready to admit, if you please, for the sake of argument, that every opinion I hold is wrong and deserves punishment. Let the law punish it. If you say the law cannot, then you admit that you have no right, and I appeal to public opinion against the iniquity of a decision which overrides the law and denies me justice. I beg yours, Sir, and the House's pardon, too, if in this warmth there seems to be a lack of respect for its dignity, as I shall have, if your decision be against me, to come to that Table when your decision is given. I beg you, Gentlemen, to pause before a step is taken in which we may both lose our dignity. Mine is not much, but yours is that of the Commons of England. I beg you, before the gauntlet is fatally thrown down—I beg you, not in any sort of menace, not in any sort of boast; but I beg you, as one man against 600, to give me that justice which on the other side of this Hall the Judges would give me were I pleading before them.

§ Mr. BRADLAUGH
then withdrew.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member for Northampton has presented himself at the Table to take the Oath, and, by the pleasure of the House, has been heard at the Bar. It is now for the House to declare whether the hon. Member should be called in to know the pleasure of the House. It is for the House to express its opinion upon that matter.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
Sir, the Question which you have put to the House is, as I understand it, whether the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh), who has just been heard at the Bar, should be called in to know the pleasure of the House? I am not aware whether any hon. Member proposes to submit any Resolution to the House; but, if not, I hardly understand upon what point it would be necessary, or, indeed, possible, for the House to express any opinion. As I understand it, the House yesterday, after full debate, came to the conclusion that the hon Member could not be allowed either to take the 639 Oath or to make an Affirmation. Against that conclusion of the House the hon. Member has, in the speech to which we have just listened, advanced certain arguments. But they come after the House has arrived at a conclusion, and I am not aware that anything new has been advanced on the part of the hon. Member which had not been previously known to and considered by the House. Under these circumstances, it does not seem to me—but I speak in ignorance of what others may propose to do—that there is any occasion for us to come to any Resolution upon the matter, nor can I gather that there is any communication which it is necessary for the House to make to the hon. Gentleman. It seems to me that the matter is one which is left where it stood last night. We have had an intimation from the hon. Gentleman that he proposes, unless the decision of last night is in some shape or other rescinded, to take another opportunity of coming forward and challenging what he claims to be his right. If he should take that course, I presume that the House and you, Sir, will know what is the proper course to be adopted; but, in the meantime, so far as I can perceive, without directions from yourself, or in default of any Resolution which may be moved by others, it does not appear to me that it is necessary that we should take any further action in the matter.

MR. GLADSTONE
I did not reply, Sir, to the appeal made to me just now by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South-West Lancashire (Sir R. Assheton Cross) because I was in doubt whether, the Question having been put, I could regularly speak. The fact was, I was in doubt whether the right hon. Gentleman had or had not spoken in due submission to the Forms of the House, or whether he had observed the stage which the Speaker had reached in putting the Question. I advisedly abstained from offering to the House any recommendation upon the Question, whether Mr. Bradlaugh should be heard or not? It does not appear to me that it appertains presumptively to me even to presume to take upon myself to give advice to the House in regard to any open question which may arise, or may be likely to arise, under the Resolution at which it arrived last night. I am one of the minority of this House who Sir Stafford Northcote 640 objected to that Resolution; all of us objected on the ground that we believed it to be impolitic, and some of us upon the ground that we believed it to be illegal. I am one of those who, leaning to the stronger of those propositions, felt that my belief, by even a leaning in that direction, disabled me from offering advice to the House in regard to particulars which may arise in any new or subordinate question connected with the application of that Resolution. For that reason it was that I abstained from offering my advice to the House. Now that Mr. Bradlaugh has had an opportunity of speaking, I may say that it would have been difficult to establish by strict argument the title of Mr. Bradlaugh, or of anyone, to offer observations at the Bar against the judgment of the House, a judgment at which the House has definitively and deliberately arrived. At the same time, I am free to say that I think the House, in hearing Mr. Bradlaugh, exercised a generous indulgence; and I do not doubt that, under the circumstances, it may have been a wise indulgence. Now, I have so far ventured to take upon myself to state exactly what my opinion was upon this question. The matter which has now arisen, as put Sir, by you from the Chair, is of a different character. I entirely agree with the Leader of the Opposition that no new question arises for the consideration of the House. If a new question had arisen, I might have thought it right to act as I acted before; but, at present, I think my duty is, in the first place, to sustain the Chair, whenever I have the opportunity, in the exercise of its authority with regard to this matter, to submit for myself to the Resolution of the House, and to use no indirect or circuitous means of frustrating or impeding the application of that Resolution. It was in acting upon this last expression of opinion that I stated my full concurrence with the Leader of the Opposition, when the right hon. Gentleman said that no new question had at present arisen which called for the judgment of the House.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The position in which the House is now placed is this. The hon. Member for Northampton has presented himself at the Table to take the Oath. I reminded the hon. Member of the Resolution which was passed yesterday, and, having read it, I directed 641 the hon. Member to withdraw. The hon. Member desired, before acting upon my direction, that he might be heard. I submit to the House that the proper course is that the hon. Member should be desired to attend at the Table to receive a final direction from the Chair that he do withdraw—because the hon. Member, if I understand him aright, awaits the final verdict from the Chair after he has been heard at the Bar. Is it your pleasure that Mr. Bradlaugh be called in?

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
rose to address the House. ["Order, order !"]

§ MR. SPEAKER
I must point out to the hon. Member that the House is now engaged in a formal proceeding—namely, simply to call in the hon. Member for Northampton in order that he may know the pleasure of the House. After the hon. Member for Northampton has been called in, and the pleasure of the House shall have been signified to him, an opportunity will be given to the hon. Member to address the House.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
That is precisely the point I wished to raise—what is the pleasure of the House upon this subject?—because I evidently could not raise that question after Mr. Bradlaugh had been called in and told what the pleasure of the House is. As I understand it, you intend to convey to Mr. Bradlaugh that the pleasure of the House is that he be neither allowed to affirm nor to take the Oath. ["Order, order!"]

§ MR. SPEAKER
I must correct the hon. Member. The Question I put to the House is, whether it is the pleasure of the House that Mr. Bradlaugh be called in?

§ MR. LABOUCHERE,
who rose amid renewed cries of "Order," said: I apprehend, Sir, I am in Order. Of course you will tell me if I am not, and I will sit down; but I want to say this. You have, or the House has, heard Mr. Bradlaugh at the Bar. Well, it is just possible that the House may have changed its opinion—[Laughter] —Hon. Gentlemen laugh; but let me ask if they started with the foregone conclusion that what was decided yesterday could not be altered, what was the use of calling Mr. Bradlaugh up to the Bar?

§ SIR JOHN E. MOWBRAY
I rise to Order. You, Sir, have informed the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere) that the pleasure of the 642 House is that Mr. Bradlaugh should now be called in. I ask you, after your having twice made that announcement, whether it is now in Order for the hon. Member to raise the question again?

§ MR. COURTNEY
I understand you, Sir, to put the Question to the House that Mr. Bradlaugh be now called in; and, therefore, the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Oxford University (Sir John E. Mowbray) is not correct in his supposition.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The Question I put to the House was—"Is it the pleasure of the House that Mr. Bradlaugh be called in?" If that received the general assent, no doubt Mr. Bradlaugh would be called in at once; but on putting that Question, the hon. Member for Northampton rises in his place, and claims to address the House on the point. Therefore I now call upon Mr. Labouchere.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
As you have said, Sir, you asked the House whether it is the pleasure of the House that Mr. Bradlaugh be called in. Well, if Mr. Bradlaugh were called in, and it is the pleasure of the House that he be not allowed to affirm or to swear, would this be stated by you to him? It is that point I wish to challenge. I do not wish to make a long speech, for there have been too many speeches upon the question already. We have had speeches upon the Motion, speeches upon the Amendment, and upon other matters which had nothing to do either with the Motion or the Amendment. I do not think these speeches have changed many views. Hon. Gentlemen came down to vote one way or the other, and I think it was somewhat invidious to raise in an indirect manner the question whether Mr. Bradlaugh should be allowed to take the Oath of Allegiance. Up to the present moment no argument has been specifically addressed to this question. Upon this side of the House hon. Gentlemen spoke in favour of my Motion, that Mr. Bradlaugh should be allowed to affirm. On that side of the House hon. Gentlemen spoke on the Amendment, and made many speeches to show that Mr. Bradlaugh might neither affirm nor take the Oath. But those speeches were not answered here. We have the fact before us that not only the Prime Minister is of opinion that Mr. Bradlaugh has an absolute and perfect right to come to that Table to take the Oath 643 of Allegiance, without any interference on the part of the House; but we have also the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General (Sir John Holker), who sits on that side of the House, entertaining the same doctrine.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member is not entitled to call in question a vote of the House unless he is prepared to make a Motion to rescind it.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
Well, I will ask you, Sir, whether I may put this — That Mr. Bradlaugh, having been heard at the Bar of the House, he now allowed to take the Oath of Allegiance at the Table of the House? I gather that I may put that.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Such a proposition would be in direct opposition to the vote passed by the House yesterday, and cannot be put.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
As I understand it, Sir, you ruled that I could ask the House to rescind the decision which it came to yesterday. That being so, I apprehend that I may move this Resolution. Of course if you say I may not, I may not, and there the matter collapses; but I understand that I may move the Resolution, and, under those circumstances, I am going to move the Resolution. Mr. Bradlaugh is in an exceedingly difficult position—

§ MR. ARTHUR O'CONNOR
I wish to ask, Sir, whether it is competent for the hon. Member to move to rescind a Resolution of this House without Notice?

§ MR. SPEAKER
If the hon. Member for Northampton moves to rescind the Resolution passed by the House yesterday he will be in Order.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
Then I will move to rescind the Resolution taken by the House yesterday. I have already said that I did not wish to occupy the time of the House by making a lengthy speech, either legal or otherwise, upon this question; but I will only point out to hon. Gentlemen opposite, as a matter of fairness to Mr. Bradlaugh, what his position is. Mr. Bradlaugh has been elected fairly and legally as the Member for Northampton, and it was his duty to that constituency to do his best to come into the House and to fulfil his duty as their Representative. He was anxious to affirm, because he was under the impression that that would be more pleasing to the House than that 644 he should take the Oath; but when I brought forward the Resolution that he should be allowed to affirm, an Amendment was put and carried that he should neither be allowed to affirm nor to take the Oath. I beg to move to rescind the Resolution of yesterday.

§ MR. MACDONALD
I second the Motion of the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere), with great pleasure. I feel keenly upon the matter, because I look upon the course taken by the House as an attempt to trample on the rights of a constituency never before witnessed in connection with any constituency in the United Kingdom. If we are not successful in resisting that action, at least we who vote for the Motion will show that a large number of Members are still in favour of civil and religious liberty.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
I rise to Order. I wish to put a question to you, Mr. Speaker, with regard to the important proposal which I understand to be made by the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere.) I understand from the authority of the book to which we commonly look for guidance in these matters that in the case of a proposal to rescind a Resolution, the course pursued is that the Resolution itself should be read to the House, and then a Motion made to rescind it. That Motion, I understand, is now proposed by the sitting Member for Northampton (Mr. Labouchere). I wish to ask if that is the right course to adopt on this occasion, or whether it is not necessary that Notice should be given of the intention to take so serious a step as to move to rescind a Resolution of the House?

§ MR. SPEAKER
On the question of Notice there is no doubt that, under ordinary circumstances, Notice is necessary; but this being a question of Privilege, and one affecting the seat of an hon. Member, Notice in such a case is not absolutely necessary, regard being had to the practice of the House. I will now put the Question.

MR. GORST
I rise to move the adjournment of the debate.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Order, Order ! The Question is that Mr. Bradlaugh, having been heard at the Bar in support of his claim to take the Oath, the Resolution of the House relative to his claim be rescinded.

MR. GORST
I move the adjournment of the debate. I do so for this reason. Whether the House requires Notice of this Motion or not, it is obvious that the rules of fair play require that a Resolution arrived at by the House in the small hours of the morning ought not to be rescinded at noon on the same day without some Notice being given. I feel sure that my Motion for the adjournment of the debate will receive the support of Her Majesty's Government.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
urged that if over a Motion for the adjournment of the debate was justified it was in this case. The House had given judgment in the case of Mr. Bradlaugh that day, and the House was asked within a few hours to rescind the Resolution which it had come to after two Committees had investigated the subject, and after the subject itself had been fully debated for two nights. Whatever might be the opinions of the sitting Member for Northampton, which had induced him to support his Colleague, he must say that his conduct now was scarcely respectful to the House. That was his opinion, at any rate. Mr. Bradlaugh had had the indulgence of the House as far as it could be granted.

MR. GLADSTONE
Sir, I do not join in the censure which has just been passed upon the sitting Member for Northampton (Mr. Laboucherej. I have no doubt that he, like most of us, felt that whatever choice of difficulties we might make, choice of difficulties is the only course that we have before us. Nor was I in the smallest degree surprised by the judgment given by you, Mr. Speaker, from the Chair, that, under the peculiar circumstances of this case, the authoritative usage respecting Notice which is so vital, as a general rule, to the good order of our proceedings, could not be applied against the hon. Member. 646 Therefore, he will not misunderstand the words that I am about to speak. Viewing him as entitled to submit his Motion to the notice of this House upon, his own conscientious judgment, I likewise have endeavoured to give it the best consideration I could at the present moment in the light that is thrown upon it by the consideration of the position of the several parties concerned in this important and critical affair; and, Sir, the judgment at which I have arrived is that no good can be done by persevering in that course. There cannot be the smallest hope that the House will rescind the Resolution of last night. If the House did rescind the Resolution, there is no doubt that it would be with a loss of dignity which I know not whether at some time or other, and under some circumstances or other, it might have to confront. What I look to is the probable issue of the re-affirmation of the Resolution, and at the position in which the mere proposal to rescind it places the House of Commons. I think it is inflicting disparagement upon the House, so far as that can be done by the act of the hon. Member, to make this request at the present time. I perfectly understand the obligation which might be felt by the hon. Member to run the risk of that disparagement if he had in view a practicable object of probable attainment. But he cannot himself so regard it. It practically assumes the character of a challenge to the House to affirm the Resolution at which it has already arrived. I can see no good that is to arise to Mr. Bradlaugh, to the House of Commons, to the constituency of Northampton, to the majority or to the minority of this House, from taking that course; and, therefore, not having shrunk myself from meeting the whole exigencies of this case, so far as I have been able to view and appreciate them, I would most earnestly appeal to the hon. Gentleman to waive this exercise of his right, and to refrain from pressing upon the House a Motion of the adoption of which there cannot be the smallest reasonable hope, and from the rejection of which nothing but inconvenience could arise.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
Sir, after the appeal which which has been made to mo by the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister, who has already so nobly supported the cause of religious 647 and civil liberty on this question, and who has stood up so bravely to defend the cause of the right of the constituencies to choose their own Member, without this House being converted into a Court of Appeal, I think that I should be wrong in persisting in this Resolution. Hon. Gentlemen on this side of the House will understand the peculiar position which I occupy. I have no wish unduly to obtrude myself upon the House in connection with this case. I have no wish to get the House into trouble; but I will point out that it was said by a far higher authority than I am—namely, by the Prime Minister yesterday, that if hon. Gentlemen did not agree to allow Mr. Bradlaugh to go at once to the Table and either affirm or take the Oath, then there was a good deal of trouble in store for them. I shall exceedingly regret it; but I trust hon. Gentlemen will see that it is not my fault. I beg leave to withdraw my Resolution.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Is it your pleasure that Mr. Bradlaugh be called in?

And MR. SPEAKER
having ascertained that it was the pleasure of the House that Mr. Bradlaugh should be called in, and Mr. Bradlaugh being at the Table,

§ MR. SPEAKER
Mr. Bradlaugh, you attended the House this morning with a view to take the Oath. I then directed you to withdraw, and you expressed a desire that you should be heard before you were finally directed to withdraw. The House complied with that application, and you were heard by the House. Having been heard by the House, I have no further orders from the House beyond those which I have already signified. You will now withdraw. MR BRADLAUGH I beg respectfully to insist upon my right as a duly elected Member for Northampton; and I ask you to have the Oath administered to me that I may take my seat. I respectfully refuse to withdraw.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I desire again to point out to the hon. Member that the orders of this House are that he do now withdraw.

§ MR. BRADLAUGH
With great respect, Sir, I refuse to obey the orders of the House, which are against the law.

§ MR. SPEAKER
I have now to appeal to the House to give authority to the Chair to compel the execution of its orders. I have no authority, in a case of this kind, without the orders of the House, to exercise force; and I must, therefore, appeal to the House to give me instructions for that purpose.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
Mr. Speaker, I feel that after what fell from the Prime Minister a little while ago that his position is one which is of great delicacy in this matter, and I entirely sympathize with and feel the force of his observations with regard to the course that ought to be taken in the details of the proceedings which are necessary in consequence of the decision at which the House arrived yesterday, contrary to his advice and to his opinion. Sir, I therefore take upon myself the responsibility, believing that I am thereby taking a course the most convenient to the House, and most in accordance with the feelings of the Prime Minister himself and of others, in making the Motion, which you say is necessary, in order to give you authority in the matter which you have now before you. I therefore will take upon myself to move—though I am not quite sure what the terms of the Motion should be— That Mr. Speaker do take the necessary steps for requiring and enforcing the withdrawal of the hon. Member for Northampton".

§ MR. SPEAKER
According to former precedents the Motion should be—"That the hon. Member do now withdraw."

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
Then I make that Motion.

§ Mr. BRADLAUGH
continued to stand at the Table while the division was being taken. The numbers having been announced—

§ MR. SPEAKER
Mr. Bradlaugh, I have now to inform you that it is the order of the House that you do now withdraw.

§ MR. BRADLAUGH
I submit to you, Sir, that the order of the House is against the law, and I positively refuse to obey it.

§ MR. SPEAKER
Sergeant at Arms, remove Mr. Bradlaugh below the Bar.

§ MR. BRADLAUGH
(while being removed below the Bar): I shall submit to the Sergeant at Arms removing me below the Bar; but I shall immediately return.

§ MR. BRADLAUGH,
again advancing within the Bar, said: I understand that I am ordered out of the House. I claim my right as a Member of this House—[Cries of "Order, order!"] —I claim my right as a Member of this House to take the Oath and to take my seat. I admit the right of the House to imprison me; but I admit no right on the part of the House to exclude me, and I refuse to be excluded.

§ MR. SPEAKER
The House has now to deal with a very grave matter. It is for the judgment of the House to say what course is now to be taken with Mr. Bradlaugh, the Member for Northampton, who, having been called upon to withdraw, refused to obey the order of the House. He was then ordered to be removed by the Sergeant at Arms, and now he again insists upon taking his seat in this House. I have to put it to the House to say what course should be taken with the hon. Member.

§ SIR STAFFORD NORTHCOTE
I apprehend, Sir, that the question now before the House is one altogether of a different character from that with which we have recently been occupied. It is not now a question of whether the hon. Member has or has not a right to take the Oath or make an Affirmation; but it is a question whether the authority of the Chair, and not only the authority of the Chair, but that of the House itself, is to be supported or disregarded. I am quite sure, Sir, that none of us are disposed to make any personal complaint of the conduct of the 650 hon. Member. We know that he is in a position which calls for our consideration, and that we must make all proper allowance for the course which he may think it to be his duty to take. But we, too, have our duty to perform. Now, Sir, with reference to my own interposition at this moment, I must again apologize to this House for taking upon myself the function which would more properly belong to the Leader of the House; and I make no observations beyond referring to what I said a few minutes ago upon the circumstances which induced him to keep silence, and to leave the initiation of further proceedings to one who is in a less responsible position—namely, myself. Sir, I believe there is no question as to the course which it is my duty to recommend to the House. I make the Motion with regret, because I had hoped that Mr. Bradlaugh, having received authoritatively—and after having had a full opportunity of making his own statements in the House—through you, Sir, the decision of the House and the directions of the House, that he would withdraw; I had hoped that he would have attended to that instruction, and that he would not have put us in the painful position in which we stand of having to enforce the authority of the Chair. I do not know that there is an alternative open to us under these circumstances. It is quite impossible that we can allow the order of the House to be broken repeatedly, and the authority of the Speaker and the House itself to be challenged over and over again; and therefore I shall deem it my duty to move, not in any spirit of vindictiveness, but simply for the purpose of asserting the authority of the House and the Chair— That Mr. Bradlaugh, having disobeyed the Orders and resisted the authority of the House, he for his said offence taken into the custody of the Sergeant at Arms attending- this House.

MR. GLADSTONE
Sir, I have endeavoured to act consistently upon the intention that I announced to the House. I thought it more seemly, and, 651 upon the whole, more advisable that recommendations should be made to the House as to the steps for it to take in the process in which it is engaged, by those who have been parties to the original decision, rather than by one of those who had most objected to it and most lamented it. But at the same time, though it was no part of my duty, I think, to advise the House in the matter, yet the Mover of the Resolution and those interested in it have a fair right to expect that it should be viewed by me, and those immediately around me, with entire candour, and candour compels me to admit that I see no other course that could have been taken by those responsible for the decision of last night than the course which is described in the Motion just submitted to the House. I cannot myself think it right to attempt to resist the House ineffectually at each step in a consistent effort to give a perfect accomplishment and consummation to the Resolution at which it has arrived. I know not whether the decision will be disputed; but admitting that it follows logically and necessarily out of what has been already done, and moreover nothing could be more unsatisfactory to all parties, nothing more unseemly than the prolongation of the scenes such as we have lately witnessed, I can enter no objection to that Motion, considering it as being in reality involved in its essence in the previous proceedings of the House.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
I do not rise, Sir, to oppose the Resolution. I think it, however, a somewhat strange thing that a citizen of this country should be sent to prison for doing what eminent legal Gentlemen on this side, and an eminent legal Gentleman on that side of the House say he has a perfect right to do. ["No, no!"] Well, I do not know whether hon. Members opposite mean to say that the hon. and learned Gentleman the late Attorney General is not an eminent legal authority on such a point. That is the view taken by that hon. and learned Gentleman. I say it is a somewhat hard thing that anyone should be put in prison for doing what a general consensus of legal opinion in this House holds to be his duty and his right. But, as the Prime Minister has stated, it is useless to oppose the Motion, because 652 Mr. Bradlaugh has come into conflict with a Resolution of the House, be that Resolution right or wrong. I, regretting as I do, the necessity that has been forced on the House, and regretting the Resolution that has been passed by the House, do not think I should be serving any good purpose in opposing the Resolution, or in asking the House to go to a vote on this question. I believe myself that the sending Mr. Bradlaugh into custody will be the first step towards his becoming a recognized Member of this House.

§ MR. BRADLAUGH
Mr. Speaker, I ask through you, Sir — [Cries of "Order!"]

§ MR. SPEAKER
The hon. Member cannot be heard without the leave of the House.

§ MR. BRADLAUGH
I ask through you, Sir—["Order, order!"]

§ MR. COURTNEY
desired to put a point which might deserve a little consideration. As he understood the Motion which had been proposed to them, the hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) was to be taken into custody forresisting an Order of the House. That, of course, they all expected would be fulfilled; but it occurred to him that if they could put a recital in that Order that the hon. Member disputed the legality of the action of the House in refusing to allow the Oath to be administered to him, it would then be competent for Mr. Bradlaugh, being in custody, to move for a Writ of Habeas Corpus, and on the return of that Writ, a question of the utmost importance— namely, the legality of that refusal— might possibly be raised. They were undoubtedly on the eve of a contention between the House and the Courts of Law, and there ought to be no backwardness on the part of the House in facing the consequences of its own action. He (Mr. Courtney) himself voted with the minority on the previous night; but he was of opinion that the Resolution then carried, though impolitic, was legal; but as the hon. Member's contention was that that Resolution was illegal, he thought there should be, as he had suggested, the possibility of inserting a recital to the effect that the hon. Member for Northampton disputed the legality of the action of the House in refusing to allow the Oath to be administered to him.

§ MR. A. M. SULLIVAN
pointed out that the hon. Gentleman's (Mr. Courtney's) suggestion raised an issue which was not now before the House. Mr. Bradlaugh was about to be committed, not for his refusal to take the Oath, but for his refusal to withdraw when ordered to do so by the House; and nobody could say there was any precedent for putting on the books of the House a recital in connection with an Order for withdrawal. It occurred to him (Mr. A. M. Sullivan) that if the question as to taking the Oath were to be raised in any way that would enable the House as well as Mr. Bradlaugh to try it, Mr. Brad-laugh himself could raise the question by walking into the Lobby and giving a vote or by taking his seat in the House; but any Member of the House who refused to obey an Order of the House thus conveyed to him by the Speaker would be in exactly the same position which the Member for Northampton now occupied. He understood that the committal was for disobedience to the Order of the House, and for nothing else.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY
said, he thought it was important that they should have on the record all the circumstances connected with the giving of Mr. Bradlaugh into custody, for it would be in the power of the House, by making a mere general Return that he was given into custody for disobeying the Order of the House, to evade all consequences of law whatever, as a Court of Law would not go behind the Return. But he took it that the majority would not shrink from the responsibility of their action. Having stepped between Mr. Bradlaugh and the discharge of what he considered to be his Parliamentary duty, they ought not to be afraid to have clearly on record what were the circumstances in connection with the giving of Mr. Bradlaugh into custody, in order that he might have an opportunity of asking the Courts of Law whether the action of the House was or was not an illegal obstruction. A proper Resolution to this effect could not be drawn up on the spur of the moment; but it was clear that those who felt strongly that the House was entering on an illegal course of action, in defiance of the warning of one of its oldest Members—

§ MR. FINIGAN
Sir, I rise to Order. I wish to know whether a gentleman 654 who is taking notes at the Bar is doing so with the cognizance of the House?

MB. SPEAKER
made no reply.

MR LYULPH STANLEY
resumed, and said that he and others wanted to have all the circumstances placed on the records of the House, so that the legal question might hereafter be properly raised. He did not think that ought to be decided on the spur of the moment, and he suggested that there should be an adjournment in order to give time for the consideration of the matter.

§ MR. MACDONALD
I rise again, Sir, to call your attention to a gentleman who is now, and has been for some time, within the limits of this House taking notes, and I wisk to know whether that is by your authority or the authority of this House?

§ MR. SPEAKER
The shorthand writer referred to by the hon. Member is present by the authority of the House, and he is taking down—not the debates of the House, for that would be dearly out of Order—but simply the proceedings with reference to this matter, which is a matter of Privilege.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY
said, he would move the adjournment of the debate, as it was impossible at that moment to settle a Resolution in a form that would raise the whole matter.

§ MR. MACDONALD
seconded the Motion. The hon. Member for Northampton (Mr. Bradlaugh) was entitled to have a clear record of the proceedings if he intended, as he (Mr.Macdonald) hoped he did intend, to appeal at once to a Court of Law to vindicate his right to sit in the House. The hon. Member appeared there, largely supported by the working men of Northampton; and as representing the working men of the town of Stafford he (Mr. Macdonald) claimed that the hon. Member might have every justice done him, and that he might have the proceedings clearly recorded. Hon. Members on the Opposition side had had the courage, on the previous night, to go into the Lobby to deprive Mr. Bradlaugh of his right, and to deprive the town of Northampton of its right to return him; and if they did not have the courage to allow the whole matter to be placed on the records of the House, he (Mr. Mac-donald) said that they would be acting in a spirit of cowardice unworthy of a great Assembly. [Cries of "Order!"J He was under the order of the Speaker, 655 and not under the order of the Opposition. Till he had his condemnation, his language would be "No." He said again that they would be acting in a spirit of cowardice. The meanest subject in the Realm had the power to appeal to a Court of Justice; but by the course proposed the hon. Member for Northampton would be deprived of that right. He (Mr. Macdonald) therefore cordially seconded the Motion for adjournment, so that the whole matter might be put in such a form as would give the hon. Member an opportunity of bringing his case before the Courts of Law.

§ THE ATTORNEY GENERAL (Sir HENRY JAMES)
said, his reasons for abstaining from taking part in the discussion were similar to those of the Prime Minister; but it might be expected that he should say a few words with respect to the suggestion of the hon. Member for Liskeard (Mr. Courtney). He understood that suggestion to relate to the probability of the action of the House being reviewed by means of legal proceedings, and the phrase used by the hon. Member was that the House was on the verge of coming into collision with the Courts of Law. He apprehended that there was, in fact, no such probability. He understood the case to be this—that Mr. Bradlaugh, having received directions from the Speaker, with the full acquiescence of the House, to withdraw from the House, had thought it right, in order to maintain the claim which he had made, to refuse to withdraw. He (the Attorney General) apprehended that that was clearly an act of disorder and contempt. He supposed Mr. Bradlaugh had so done for the purpose of maintaining what he considered to be his right; but clearly it was a contempt of the House not to obey the order to withdraw. He would not enter into a legal question; but he apprehended that there were decisions over and over again, well known to them all, that a Court of Law had no power to review such proceedings of the House. The House had that in he rent power which every Court had, to maintain order within its walls, and to prevent its orders from being treated with contempt. There 656 could, therefore, be no power of reviewing the proceedings of the House. He understood his hon. Friend who had made the suggestion to wish it to be shown on the Warrant that Mr. Bradlaugh had acted in the exercise of a bonâd fide claim of right to remain in the House. He was sure that the House would be unwilling to take any course that would prevent the hon. Member for Northampton from raising any legal right which he thought he might possess, and that, considering all the circumstances of the case, the House would be very careful to see that the hon. Member should be in no way prejudiced by a refusal to bring all the facts of the case before the Court that was said to have power in the matter. But there could be no possibility of any injustice being done to the hon. Member by refraining from setting out in the Warrant the reasons for the Order, for, supposing there was a right in the Courts of Law to review the decisions of the House, against which view he protested, he presumed it would be done by moving for a Writ of habeas corpus, and that application would have to be made on affidavits, stating distinctly the whole of the proceedings. He thought, therefore, that it would be contrary both to the practice and the dignity of the House to enter on the warrant of commitment the course taken by Mr. Bradlaugh, but only the order made by the House, and he could assure the House that in doing so they would not be prejudicing any claim made by the hon. Member.

MR. LYULPH STANLEY
asked leave to withdraw his Motion for an adjournment, because he understood, from indications on the other side of the House, that if the matter came before a Court of Law the facts would be stated as fully and fairly as possible.

§ MR. LABOUCHERE
said, Mr. Bradlaugh wished him to state that on coming to the Table and on being asked to withdraw, he said—"I positively refuse to obey the order of the House, as not being according to law." All that Mr. Bradlaugh asked was that those words should be on the face of the proceedings. He (Mr. Labouchere) hoped the hon. and learned Attorney General would not object to that. They might be useless; but in that case they would only be surplusage, and could do no harm. There could be no doubt 657 that Mr. Bradlaugh did say those words.

§ MR. FINIGAN
said, that as an Irish Member, sent to that House for the purpose of obtaining guarantees for the liberties and freedom of Ireland, he could not see that he should be supporting the principles of liberty by in any way consenting to the imprisonment of a Gentleman over whom, he contended, the House had no jurisdiction. Until Mr. Bradlaugh had taken his seat within that House as a Member, he was convinced that, if not from a legal point of view, yet from the point of view of justice, the House would be acting in an impolitic and unjust manner if it condemned to imprisonment a Gentleman over whom it had no control. He had heard many arguments in that House for and against Mr. Bradlaugh; but he had not heard from any of the legal or non-legal speakers a tittle of evidence to prove that Mr. Bradlaugh had no right to take an Oath in that House. Therefore, until the House had had time to calmly consider the question, and in order that some judicial opinion might be taken on the case in the interests of justice, as a supporter of the liberties of his own country, and an opponent of any form of tyranny whatever, he moved the adjournment of the debate.

§ MR. BIGGAR
seconded the Motion.

§ MR. NEWDEGATE
pointed out to the hon. Member that, while he enjoyed the privileges of a Member of the House, it was contrary to the authority of the House, and to the authority of any Legislative Assembly, however democratic it might be, to interrupt the exercise of its authority, not only over a Member, but over any other person who interrupted its proceedings.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he had not taken any part in the debate on this 658 question up to the present moment, because he had found that his opinions upon it were not shared by the great majority of the Irish Members. Although he had felt it right to vote in the division of the previous day, and in the various divisions that had taken place that day, he had not up to that point deemed it right to obtrude himself upon the House. But they had now reached a stage at which he felt it was his duty to say a few words in explanation of the vote he had given. The Resolution which the Speaker had put from the Chair asked the House to decide that Mr. Bradlaugh be committed to the custody of the Sergeant at Arms—in other words, that he be imprisoned. He asked hon. Members to consider the position in which they would be placed if the House adopted the Motion. They had not decided that Mr. Bradlaugh's seat be declared vacant, and if they imprisoned him, they put themselves in this position—that either they would have to leave the question alone with reference to the vacation of the seat for Northampton, or else they would have to adjudicate upon it during the imprisonment of the principal person concerned. If they did not proceed to vacate the seat they inflicted a grievous injury upon the constituency of Northampton by depriving it of the opportunity of being represented in that House. If, on the other hand, they proceeded to consider the question of vacating the seat, they would have to do so during the imprisonment of Mr. Bradlaugh, whose case they would have to decide behind his back and without affording him an opportunity of saying anything in his own defence. But his (Mr. Parnell's) object in rising, more particularly at that time, was to point out to his hon. Friends from Ireland that if they voted for the Motion before the House, they would vote, as he believed, for a Motion repugnant to the feelings of the people of the Southern, Western, and Eastern divisions of Ireland. He could not believe that the Irish constituencies would desire their Members to vote for the imprisonment of anybody. They knew the last time that Motion was made it was made against the late Mr. William Smith O'Brien, who was taken to the place to which he supposed the hon. Member for Northampton would be taken. He could not help 659 thinking that there were alternatives to the course which it was proposed to adopt—such, for example, as excluding Mr. Bradlaugh from the House—and that there was no reason to imprison the hon. Member and do an injury to the constituency. He would conclude as he had begun, by saying that he did not believe the Irish constituencies would wish even an Atheist to be imprisoned.

§ MR. A. MOORE
said, he protested against the false issues which had been raised. They did not imprison this man because of his religious opinions. An Order had been given to him to withdraw, and he had refused to obey that Order. Such a proceeding was clearly a breach of the Privileges of the House, which would be only exercising its legitimate authority by acting upon the Motion now before it. He denied that the issue raised by the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) was the true or real issue before the House.

THE O'DONOGHUE
said, he was sorry to be obliged to differ from his hon. Friend the Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) on the course he had taken in this question. On most subjects he was quite ready to allow his hon. Friend to speak for him; but on this occasion he must positively decline to do so.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, he rose to explain. ["Order, Order!"]

§ MR. SPEAKER
said, the hon. Member for Tralee (The O'Donoghue) was in possession of the House; but he understood the hon. Member for Cork (Mr. Parnell) to rise merely to make an explanation.

§ MR. PARNELL
said, that he wished, with the permission of his hon. Friend (The O'Donoghue), to explain that he had not attempted to speak for any hon. Member but himself.

THE O'DONOGHUE
said, that of course he did not for a moment wish to deny his hon. Friend (Mr. Parnell) an opportunity to explain; but he certainly understood him to say that the course which many Irish Members had taken, or were about to take, would be disagreeable to their constituents in the South and West of Ireland. He (The O'Donoghue) entertained no doubt whatever that the course which he had taken and intended to take would be in accordance with the wishes and feelings not only of his constituents but of the great majority of the people of the South 660 and West of Ireland. The facts of the case had not been put before the House quite fairly. Mr. Bradlaugh was ordered to withdraw, and in defiance of the Rules of the House he declined to do so. He (The O'Donoghue) thought he was doing his duty to the House and to his constituents in voting that every necessary step should be taken to compel Mr. Bradlaugh to conform to the Rules of the House.